2015 Was the Hottest Year on Record, by a Stunning Margin

[genuineoriginal]

Except that I haven't ignored it. I haven't focused on it in this thread, which is about the measured warming trend predicted by climate science. But, of course, it's uncomfortable for science denialists to get into the details, because they box them in.

_____
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Occam's razor
_____​

Anthropogenic Global Warming fails to meet the principle of Occam's razor.

CO2 comprises no more than 0.04% (four one-hundredths of a percent) of the atmosphere.
Only 4% of CO2 emissions can be attributed to man, the rest comes from natural sources.

That means that man can only be responsible for .00016% of the atmosphere, which is 1.6 parts per million.

So, the first assumption is that 1.6 parts per million is significant, when most people will readily agree that .0000016 is a very insignificant amount.

The next assumption is that CO2 causes a rise in temperature retroactively, since records show clearly that a rise in CO2 lags a rise in temperature.

Another assumption is that the modern urban heat island effect on recent temperatures means that the older rural temperatures should be adjusted downwards in order to show a steeper warming trend and hide the warming period of the 1940s.

 

[The Berean]

Ok, let's get to the nitty gritty. Lots and lots of people keep posting articles all over social media and TOL about the Earth getting hotter. Ok, we getting it. The Earth is getting warmer. My question is what are we going to do about? So don't just stop at being Chicken Little. What solutions can you offer to slow down or reverse global warming?

 

[elohiym]

The Earth is getting warmer.

Why is that a bad thing? :idunno:

What solutions can you offer to slow downor reverse global warming?

If it's not a bad thing, maybe we shouldn't try to slow it down or reverse it. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

The Earth is getting warmer. My question is what are we going to do about?

throw away our winter coats and snow shovels and buy shorts and flip-flops?

 

[rexlunae]

_____
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Occam's razor
_____​

Anthropogenic Global Warming fails to meet the principle of Occam's razor.

CO2 comprises no more than 0.04% (four one-hundredths of a percent) of the atmosphere.
Only 4% of CO2 emissions can be attributed to man, the rest comes from natural sources.

That means that man can only be responsible for .00016% of the atmosphere, which is 1.6 parts per million.

So, the first assumption is that 1.6 parts per million is significant, when most people will readily agree that .0000016 is a very insignificant amount.

That's not a correct application of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that we should prefer a simple explanation to a complex one. But since you aren't offering an alternative explanation to the predominant theory, it isn't even possible to make an evaluation along the lines of Occam's Razor. You're just assuming that a change on the order of what humans are doing is too small to make a difference, without bothering to check to see if that's true.

The next assumption is that CO2 causes a rise in temperature retroactively, since records show clearly that a rise in CO2 lags a rise in temperature.

Nonsense, no such assumption is made.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Another assumption is that the modern urban heat island effect on recent temperatures means that the older rural temperatures should be adjusted downwards in order to show a steeper warming trend and hide the warming period of the 1940s.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/truth-about-temperature-data.html

 

[The Berean]

Why is that a bad thing? :idunno:



If it's not a bad thing, maybe we shouldn't try to slow it down or reverse it. :idunno:

The question was geared more towards the people who believe global warming is a bad thing. :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

Ok, let's get to the nitty gritty. Lots and lots of people keep posting articles all over social media and TOL about the Earth getting hotter. Ok, we getting it. The Earth is getting warmer. My question is what are we going to do about? So don't just stop at being Chicken Little. What solutions can you offer to slow downor reverse global warming?

The solution: invest in cleaner energy and transportation, and build our societies in ways that are sustainable.

The solutions aren't hidden or particularly hard to understand. And, at the risk of sounding alarmist, there's quite a bit of pushback from people who simply don't seem to believe in the science.

 

[rexlunae]

Why is that a bad thing? :idunno:

The least that can possibly be said is that it's a planet-wide experiment in pushing the limits of the survival of life. No one knows what all the consequences could be, but the ones that have been predicted are bad enough (changes in climate patterns, habitat destruction, unknown feedback loops).

 

[oatmeal]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...e-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-stunning-margin

Let me guess, the thermometers are in on the conspiracy.

So what?

global climate change has been happening for billions of years and suddenly now it matters?

What is the optimal temperature for the globe?

Maybe the globe is supposed to be warmer so that I don't have to go to Florida to enjoy less snow. Yippee!

What if the optimal temperature is 2 degrees higher than it is now? Then we should do more to initiate global warming!

What is the optimal temperature?

You are panicking over a fraction of a degree?

Is the sky falling too?

 

[elohiym]

The solution: invest in cleaner energy and transportation, and build our societies in ways that are sustainable.

Spend money.

Can you prove spending money on cleaner energy and transportation will have a significant enough impact?

When you write "build our societies" don't you mean rebuild our societies? And what does building sustainable societies mean exactly?

 

[The Berean]

The solution: invest in cleaner energy and transportation, and build our societies in ways that are sustainable.

Can you list specific technologies? Investment in clean technology has been going on for decades now. I live in Silicon Valley and there are quite a bit of clean tech companies in the area. But IMO a more immediate solution is for people to change their habits. It can start with people recycling as much as they can. Can you imagine if everyone recycled how much of a difference that would make? People can stop buying so many plastic products. People can stop driving so much and either take public transportation or ride a bike to work. But many people tend to be lazy and are not willing to change easily. Agricultural polution is also a major problem. Agriculture feeds the world but it also produces a huge amount of pollution the affects the global climate.

The solutions aren't hidden or particularly hard to understand. And, at the risk of sounding alarmist, there's quite a bit of pushback from people who simply don't seem to believe in the science.

Well, that's a different problem. But the younger generations seem to take it more seriously. I had an interview last year with a startup 3D printing company. As I walked around I noticed a lot of younger people. I walked by an area where there must have been about 30-40 bikes. And this was a company with less than 100 employees.

 

[elohiym]

The least that can possibly be said is that it's a planet-wide experiment in pushing the limits of the survival of life.

How exactly is it "pushing the limits of the survival of life?"

No one knows what all the consequences could be ...changes in climate patterns, habitat destruction, unknown feedback loops...

Basically, fear of the unknown.

 

[rexlunae]

Spend money.

Can you prove spending money on cleaner energy and transportation will have a significant enough impact?

I think the more important question would be, 'can you prove that continuing to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases is safe in the long term?' And of course, there's no way to prove something like that.

When you write "build our societies" don't you mean rebuild our societies? And what does building sustainable societies means exactly?

The most important actions will be how India and China industrialize. China is making large investments in green energy and technologies, although they also don't want climate-related concerns to constrain their growth, so it is unclear how they will prioritize. India, so far, is less committed to sustainable development. But even in this country, we still build entire new cities and neighborhoods, so it's still relevant to us.

 

[rexlunae]

How exactly is it "pushing the limits of the survival of life?"



Basically, fear of the unknown.

Fear of the reasonably predicted. And yes, the unknown, given the stakes and the scope.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're just assuming that a change on the order of what humans are doing is too small to make a difference, without bothering to check to see if that's true.

You are assuming that human production of CO2 is significant enough to make a difference.

I happen to believe that human activity is having a direct effect on the weather patterns, since humans have been working out how to do that since the 1950s.

However, the insignificant effect of CO2 production is not a factor that needs to be worried about and is definitely not a factor that justifies destroying major economies in order to combat to no effect.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The solution: invest in cleaner energy and transportation, and build our societies in ways that are sustainable.

Noble goals, but they won't have any effect on the climate.

 

[elohiym]

I think the more important question would be, 'can you prove that continuing to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases is safe in the long term?' And of course, there's no way to prove something like that.

I disagree that it's the more important question when you are already making the assumption spending money on cleaner energy and transportation will have a significant enough impact on decreasing CO2 based on the assumption that increasing CO2 levels are bad. If I grant you those assumptions, you should be able to prove the proposed solution will have an impact, right?

As for proving "that continuing to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases is safe in the long term," hasn't life thrived on earth in the past with much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

The most important actions will be how India and China industrialize.

Then it's likely the most important solution being proposed will not be implemented.

 

[ok doser]

bring back the ice age! :sibbie:

 

[genuineoriginal]

I think the more important question would be, 'can you prove that continuing to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases is safe in the long term?' And of course, there's no way to prove something like that.

The amount emitted by humans falls far short of the amount emitted by natural causes.
The greenhouse gas that creates the most effect is H2O, and humans emit a negligible amount compared to natural causes.
The only greenhouse gas that has even a minimal portion emitted by humans is CO2, where humans emit only 4% and natural causes emit 96%.

There is no way to prove that humans are emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses.

 

[elohiym]

Fear of the reasonably predicted.

Give me an example.

And yes, the unknown, given the stakes and the scope.

It's reasonable for me to predict that major tsunamis will devastate coastal regions in the future, and it has nothing to do with increasing CO2 levels. Given the stakes and scope of the destruction what is the sustainable way to build our societies in light of those inevitable catastrophes?